As a Boa Constrictor and Ball Python owner, this bill directly affects my ability to keep six of my animals within my possession. If you read on to SOURCE: IC 14-22-26-2, you'll see that their definition of "Dangerous Wild Animals" encompasses a plethora of animals legal to own through the rest of North America. In SOURCE: IC 14-22-26-3, the bill details that the "Dangerous Wild Animals" may not be handled except by their registered owner, and may not be used to breed nor come into contact with the public. Moving on to SOURCE: IC 14-22-26-4.5, the owner not only has to give a detailed account of every animal in possession, including scientific name, common name, and exact location being held, but must also pay an annual fee for as long as the owners are in possession of said animals. Under SOURCE: IC 14-22-26-5, the bill mentions that a fee will be charged per animal, states that the state can possess the animal if they deem necessary under lofty claims such as "public safety," and may fine up to 2,000$ per animal, as mentioned in the synopsis, as well as remove the animal permanently. To put this at a personal perspective: I live with my parents who run a day-care service in the house. I frequently bring my more docile snakes out to let the children visit with them, and the parents accept this, while many even encourage it. I often use this as a chance to educate them on reptiles and snakes in particular, as well as how to interact gently with an animal. Upon passing this bill, not only would I be required to register my 2 Boas and 4 Pythons, but I would also have to pay an annual fee to continue owning them as well as have liability insurance for them. In the event I left the house, nobody, not even my parents, would be legally allowed to look after my snakes or tend to them in the event of an emergency. I would run the risk of having my snakes taken out of "Public Safety" measures due to the children that my parents watch during the day, resulting in a potential 12,000$ fine and the loss of my snakes, some of which I have had for 4 years. If my pets were to be repossessed, and no new home could be found for them (which is limited to zoos or zoo-like exhibits, clinics, sanctuaries, circuses, and research facilities under SOURCE: IC 14-22-26-), they would be euthanized.

These animals are pets to me, and I have friends who keep them and feel the same way. While many may not personally like snakes, please understand that to me, this is like someone claiming my cat is now a dangerous wild animal and taking it away unless I keep it locked up and pay a yearly fee to keep it. In the event that someone other than myself ever came in contact with my "cat", I would be fined and have my pet taken away. Anybody with a beloved pet should be able to understand this. I feel I should mention that my 4 Pythons are "Ball Pythons", Python regius, and are highly unlikely to get any longer than 5 feet. A Ball Python on the larger end of the scale won't even have a head (and therefore jaws) much bigger than a Hot Wheels car. While these animals may feel threatened and bite on very rare occasion, the bite itself does far less damage than a cat's bite (not to mention a cat's claws), and is far less likely to get infected. How this is a "Dangerous Wild Animal", I honestly cannot understand.

Each year, more people are killed by deer (on average, around 150) than by dogs, snakes, sharks, mountain lions, bears and alligators combined. That fact makes me wonder why deer are not on the list of “dangerous wild animals.” Walking into a caged area with a deer is more dangerous than keeping a large snake as a pet.

Please help me keep my pets, and fight this bill! Below are links to let your voice be heard.

I have yet to find any petitions for this, but I will add that if I find one.

insaneglitchx

01-23-2012, 11:53 AM

I know all of us here on Pangea and all other reptile lovers care for our pets. However, you have to be able to view the issue from the opposite standpoint. As long as it's not a venemous snake, everyone realizes that the bite isn't what's dangerous. It's the ability to constrict prey items and kill by suffocation. A 5 foot snake could easily kill a baby, toddler, or small child. Snakes make no noise when they attack, while cats and dogs are really loud. A small child out of eyesight of its parents would not to be able to be heard or call for help if it was being strangled.

As loving pet owners who take every precaution, we have to understand that the large majority of those who keep snakes do not properly house them or lock their cages. Things happen under these conditions.

Purra

01-23-2012, 04:29 PM

I know all of us here on Pangea and all other reptile lovers care for our pets. However, you have to be able to view the issue from the opposite standpoint. As long as it's not a venemous snake, everyone realizes that the bit isn't what's dangerous. It's the ability to constrict prey items and kill by suffocation. A 5 foot snake could easily kill a baby, toddler, or small child. Snakes make no noise when they attack, while cats and dogs are really loud. A small child out of eyesight of its parents would not to be able to be heard or call for help if it was being strangled.

As loving pet owners who take every precaution, we have to understand that the large majority of those who keep snakes do not properly house them or lock their cages. Things happen under these conditions.

I seriously doubt one of my ball pythons could kill a child, and even if they could, they never would try. Snakes for the most part will only constrict what they can eat. If they are biting out of fear, they tag and let go. Even if my 6'+ boa escaped in the house, only the rabbit would be in danger. She can't eat a toddler, she's not going to attack it.

While I realize there will always be irresponsible keepers, this should not mean the animal should be banned. There are so many more irresponsible dog owners that result in attacks (on people, dogs, other pets), than there ever would be of reptile keepers. I don't see dogs on that list.

Also, including all boids is just ignorant. Kenyan Sand Boas stay very small, usually around 3'. Subspecies of boa constrictor stay tiny as well. There are rosy boas, that stay very small. If they want to ban anything that constricts and is "dangerous", the same can be said of colubrids. They kill their prey in the same fashion, and some can get pretty darn big.

insaneglitchx

01-23-2012, 05:28 PM

I didn't mean to offend anyone here. I was just saying what people advocating for this bill may be thinking. To argue against a bill, you have to understand the purpose and intentions of those who drafted the proposed piece of legislation. Actually, to successfully argue against anything, you have to be able to see from where the opposing party is coming. That way you can prepare for whatever they would say. I'm sure legislators have hired animal experts. Whether they have or not will really determine how to attempt a proper argument.

mrtsgeckoworld

01-24-2012, 12:52 PM

I understand what you are saying insageglitchx, and where you are coming from. However, I would say that there are for more irresponsible owners of dogs than there are of boas/pythons. Even if a dog is playing around it can hurt a young child, from its weight alone. Most snakes, especially balls, are probably more afraid of children than any dog is. Pythons/boas may strike in defense (fight or flight) but would quickly retreat afterwards. I am not a parent, and I am sure I wouldnt want either of them happening to my kid, but if you asked would I rather have small small teeth biting my baby, or a big dogs jaws clamping down, I'd take the small snake teeth. Very large snakes are a different conversation, although, I would bet there are still more irresponsible owners of dogs, than large snakes. I can remember reading 2-3 articles of an owner (not a neighbor or friend) being hurt by their snake. Compare that to injuries acquired from dogs, deers, horses etc. and it would be hard to argue that snakes are more dangerous as pets. In Florida, sure, they could take over, and should be more closesly monitored, but if a ball or red tail gets out in Indiana, its gonna last until October, at most, then freeze or die of hunger. No threat to our local animals. All in all, there are far more important issues that Indiana should worry about, like "losing 320 millions dollars" forcing teachers to get fired, aids hours to be cut, and then miraculously finding it later, to mention one. There is no threat to any citizen other than the owners, by people housing ball pythons or red tail boas. If someone wants to put themselves in danger, thats their decision to make, just like owning a gun.

insaneglitchx

01-24-2012, 03:19 PM

I know. It's the same thing that caused people to fear German shepherds, rottweilers, and pit bulls. Very few animals would attack a human unless they were scared. The only reason the above mentioned breeds are perceived as dangerous is due to human training. German shepherds have become the breed of choice for military and police dogs, while Rottweiler
Era and pitbulls are common in the dog fighting rings. Do these breeds deserve the blame? No, they were raised that way. Is there a physical and psychological reason for those 3 breeds to have been chosen for their specific roles? Yes. They are some of the most powerful and intimidating dog breeds, so were chosen to be used for violent tasks. To me, that's similar to the snake issue. A few accidents have been blown out of proportion and made to be generalizations for entire breeds/species.